Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

vpsexperience.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#151

Post by josephlord »

andrewfong wrote: post #99
voidr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether or not the blog post actually is slander or not is debatable Yes it is, it's relative to the laws of a given country what is considered slander and what is not. > I am saying that they are perfectly within their right to enforce their TOS how they see fit There are laws around slander and DO has no right to enforce them, because last time I checked vigilantism was illegal. > If the OP doesn't agree with the…

The TOS is a contract. If the poster has "defamed" someone within the meaning of the contract, then DO is within their right to terminate. Moreover, the TOS also gives DO a lot of discretion to make their own determination of what constitutes defamation. It is not vigilantism because DO is not threatening to throw the poster in jail over an allegedly illegal act. They are simply enforcing their contractual rights. Yo…

It is "harass and embarrass" not "harass or embarrass" which again throws uncertainty on the breach.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#152

Post by josephlord »

macspoofing wrote: post #128
Tloewald wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two assholes involved in this story. If there were only one there would be no story. I think exposing what people say in the open (not private but also not quite public) isn't exactly something someone who works at google should be complaining about. If "stuff you do online can come back to haunt you" shocks you then you probably shouldn't be working at google (except perhaps as a contractor with n…

>There are at least two assholes involved in this story. Whose the other asshole?

I don't like any of the three participants in the story from this telling of it. Googler expressed fairly unpleasant views, blogger was petty personal and nasty in how he wrote up the story and DO overstepped the mark for an infrastructure service in taking it down. I don't see any winners or heroes here but I don't feel the need to call any of them arseholes either.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#153

Post by josephlord »

venomsnake wrote: post #67
josephlord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you host content then? Don't most collocation facilities and ISPs have their own TOS that are not that different?

My theory was that they shouldn't be allowed to have such TOS and be given immunity from lawsuits about the way their services are used. So basicly the only reasons a hosting provider should have grounds to terminate/interfere with service are - court order/stopped payment/the way service is used actively disrupts other customers. We should have service "first sale doctrine" equivalent - once you have sold the access…

I don't disagree but don't really get the relevance of your "Enjoy the cloud…" comment. Web hosting is something that needs some provider with terms of service and whether "cloud" or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#154

Post by venomsnake »

josephlord wrote: post #153
venomsnake wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory was that they shouldn't be allowed to have such TOS and be given immunity from lawsuits about the way their services are used. So basicly the only reasons a hosting provider should have grounds to terminate/interfere with service are - court order/stopped payment/the way service is used actively disrupts other customers. We should have service "first sale doctrine" equivalent - once you have sold the access…

I don't disagree but don't really get the relevance of your "Enjoy the cloud…" comment. Web hosting is something that needs some provider with terms of service and whether "cloud" or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

I would say that the cloud is not only a mix of technologies and solutions, but also a worldview with abusive attitude toward the catt ... consumers. In the 90s web hosting was simple - if it is not CP and you pay your bills anything goes. Right now everyone on the chain thinks and demands rights to interfere with your experience. Everyone is trying to become a gatekeeper and editorialize.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#155

Post by imdsm »

jacques_chester wrote: post #144
nknighthb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I studied law I learnt that different things, even when they lead to identical outcomes, are different, and should be dealt with independently. That may be true in a court of law. This is not a court of law. Insistence on treating it like one is a great example of why people hate lawyers.

This is not a court of law, but the situation is still being governed by the law. Terms of Service don't exist in a vacuum.

I think there are other variables in play here. Treating it like a court of law and not like the theatre of the internet is the reason why DO have embarrassed themselves. They will definitely have lost customers other than just myself, and that has nothing to do with law. That has to do with principle.

They handled this badly, and they'll pay for it, however small the impact.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#156

Post by OafTobark »

danpalmer wrote: post #26
DanBlake wrote: post #18

FWIW, all I ever read about on HN is how DO is constantly a disaster. Why you would choose to host there is beyond me. Just move your blog- It takes all of a few hours.

FWIW, this is one of only a few 'bad' DO incidents I've seen, among many very positive things. As a DO user for over a year, I can say I am mostly very happy with the service I have received, although I hope they issue a statement about this, apologising to the author and pledging to review their policies on this.

Some of the bad I've read in the past couple months alone are bad enough that no amount of positives base on loose reviews of recent users is going to counter the few bads.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#157

Post by nknighthb »

jacques_chester wrote: post #144
nknighthb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I studied law I learnt that different things, even when they lead to identical outcomes, are different, and should be dealt with independently. That may be true in a court of law. This is not a court of law. Insistence on treating it like one is a great example of why people hate lawyers.

This is not a court of law, but the situation is still being governed by the law. Terms of Service don't exist in a vacuum.

No, it's governed by our own individual senses of right and wrong. You may allow your sense of right and wrong to be dictated by legal documents, most of us do not.

Re: Digital Ocean said it would shut down my blog if I didn’t edit a blog post.

#158

Post by josephlord »

venomsnake wrote: post #154
josephlord wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree but don't really get the relevance of your "Enjoy the cloud…" comment. Web hosting is something that needs some provider with terms of service and whether "cloud" or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

I would say that the cloud is not only a mix of technologies and solutions, but also a worldview with abusive attitude toward the catt ... consumers. In the 90s web hosting was simple - if it is not CP and you pay your bills anything goes. Right now everyone on the chain thinks and demands rights to interfere with your experience. Everyone is trying to become a gatekeeper and editorialize.

I'm not sure it is a cloud issue I think it is creeping regulation (and PR concern) about controversial content being hosted. The copyright lobby has moved the bar and courts are increasingly taking actions over content posted online (although in many cases directly against the poster rather than the host).

There is obviously an increased risk if many layers claim the right to interfere. E.g. SAAS operated on Heroku running on Amazon gives at least three parties ability to interfere (or just have downtime/issues).

In this case however there was only one party Digital Ocean who operate the data centre and provided the service so I'm not sure it matters that they are a 'cloud' service rather than offering traditional hosting or a colocation service. That said I think that DO got this decision badly wrong.

Post reply on HN